Taylor LeBaron
CIPA, or Children’s Internet Protection Act was enacted by Congress in December 2000. Schools and libraries that receive federal funding or buy deeply discounted software are required to have filters on their internet so that minors cannot access pornography or anything else deemed ‘unsuitable’ for children.
Three agencies have responsibility under this new law: the FCC (Federal Communications Commission, D of Ed. (Department of Education) and IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services). Each school or library only has to report to one of the three agencies.
Every library that gets E-rate discounts for Internet access, Internet service or internal connections must comply with the new amendments to section 254 of the Communications Act and certify compliance with Children’s Internet Protection Act to the FCC. The FCC is the only agency ‘to which these entities are responsible’, even if they receive Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) title III or Library Services and Technology Act (LTSA) (state grants) funds.
School libraries receiving ESEA title III funds for computers or accessing the Internet, but no E-rate discounts, must provide their certification to the Department of Education. Libraries receiving LSTA state grant funds for computers or accessing the Internet, but no E-rate discounts, must provide their certification under Museum and Library Services Act.
Academic and college libraries are not covered under the E-rate provisions because they are not eligible for E-rate discounts and they are not covered under the LSTA provisions because those sections apply only to public libraries and libraries in public elementary and secondary schools.
The law defines a “technology protection measure” as “a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to visual depictions that are— (A) obscene . . .; (B) child pornography . ..; or (C) harmful to minors . . .” Although the law clearly requires the use of filtering or blocking technology, it does not require the use of specific filtering software or services. Instead, CIPA requires schools or libraries covered by the new requirements to certify that they are using technology that blocks or filters access to visual depictions of the type specified in the legislation.
The federal obscenity statute cited in CIPA does not itself contain an express definition of obscenity. However, the Supreme Court (in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)) has established a test for obscenity that is now implicitly incorporated into the federal statute: (a) Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state or federal law to be obscene; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
` The act defines “harmful to minors” as “any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that—“(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; “(B) depicts, describes, or represents in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and “(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-120
Taylor LeBaron
CIPA, or Children’s Internet Protection Act was enacted by Congress in December 2000. Schools and libraries that receive federal funding or buy deeply discounted software are required to have filters on their internet so that minors cannot access pornography or anything else deemed ‘unsuitable’ for children.
Three agencies have responsibility under this new law: the FCC (Federal Communications Commission, D of Ed. (Department of Education) and IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services). Each school or library only has to report to one of the three agencies.
Every library that gets E-rate discounts for Internet access, Internet service or internal connections must comply with the new amendments to section 254 of the Communications Act and certify compliance with Children’s Internet Protection Act to the FCC. The FCC is the only agency ‘to which these entities are responsible’, even if they receive Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) title III or Library Services and Technology Act (LTSA) (state grants) funds.
School libraries receiving ESEA title III funds for computers or accessing the Internet, but no E-rate discounts, must provide their certification to the Department of Education. Libraries receiving LSTA state grant funds for computers or accessing the Internet, but no E-rate discounts, must provide their certification under Museum and Library Services Act.
Academic and college libraries are not covered under the E-rate provisions because they are not eligible for E-rate discounts and they are not covered under the LSTA provisions because those sections apply only to public libraries and libraries in public elementary and secondary schools.
The law defines a “technology protection measure” as “a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to visual depictions that are— (A) obscene . . .; (B) child pornography . ..; or (C) harmful to minors . . .” Although the law clearly requires the use of filtering or blocking technology, it does not require the use of specific filtering software or services. Instead, CIPA requires schools or libraries covered by the new requirements to certify that they are using technology that blocks or filters access to visual depictions of the type specified in the legislation.
The federal obscenity statute cited in CIPA does not itself contain an express definition of obscenity. However, the Supreme Court (in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)) has established a test for obscenity that is now implicitly incorporated into the federal statute: (a) Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state or federal law to be obscene; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
` The act defines “harmful to minors” as “any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that—“(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; “(B) depicts, describes, or represents in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and “(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.”